Manufactured Gold

[FFB]

Staples match up reasonably well on most books made after about 1964. So, you buy a VF/NM copy of X-Men 94 with a coupon out or centerfold missing, and you add that cover to your VG+ complete copy -- putting the VF/NM cover on the inside. The incomplete copy wouldn't fetch much, but a double cover copy with a VF/NM cover WOULD. Sometimes, double cover copies actually SELL for double.

 

This is particularly true, interestingly enough, in middle grades. I suppose if the book is 9.8, having a double cover isn't as interesting as the grade.

 

Check out this double cover of a FN copy of GL 76

http://cgi.ebay.com/GREEN-LANTERN-76-CGC...1QQcmdZViewItem

It sold for about the same as this VF+ copy on Heritage:

http://comics.heritageauctions.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=16012&Lot_No=16246&src=pr

A FN 6.0 copy usually sells for under $75, so....

 

the bump from regular to double cover was significant.

 

Remember those unused Atlas covers from the 50's that wound up attached to books? I'll bet that happens more often than we know, too.

 

But finding two covers with identical registration, identical cut size and cut angle on all edges, identical staple placement, and defects that are not inconsistent with the defects on the "inner" cover is a lot harder than you guys seem to think. Staples do not match up well on books printed after 1964. Take a look at multiple copies of any book printed in the silver and bronze age and you almost never see staples dead on the spine line. They're usually 1/8 of an inch off or more. That variance will result in part of the outer cover extending past the under cover on one side and falling short of the under cover on the other side.

[skybolt]

Staples match up reasonably well on most books made after about 1964. So, you buy a VF/NM copy of X-Men 94 with a coupon out or centerfold missing, and you add that cover to your VG+ complete copy -- putting the VF/NM cover on the inside. The incomplete copy wouldn't fetch much, but a double cover copy with a VF/NM cover WOULD. Sometimes, double cover copies actually SELL for double.

 

This is particularly true, interestingly enough, in middle grades. I suppose if the book is 9.8, having a double cover isn't as interesting as the grade.

 

Check out this double cover of a FN copy of GL 76

http://cgi.ebay.com/GREEN-LANTERN-76-CGC...1QQcmdZViewItem

It sold for about the same as this VF+ copy on Heritage:

http://comics.heritageauctions.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=16012&Lot_No=16246&src=pr

A FN 6.0 copy usually sells for under $75, so....

 

the bump from regular to double cover was significant.

 

Remember those unused Atlas covers from the 50's that wound up attached to books? I'll bet that happens more often than we know, too.

 

But finding two covers with identical registration, identical cut size and cut angle on all edges, identical staple placement, and defects that are not inconsistent with the defects on the "inner" cover is a lot harder than you guys seem to think. Staples do not match up well on books printed after 1964. Take a look at multiple copies of any book printed in the silver and bronze age and you almost never see staples dead on the spine line. They're usually 1/8 of an inch off or more. That variance will result in part of the outer cover extending past the under cover on one side and falling short of the under cover on the other side.

 

My concern has more to do with replacing the existing rusted staples with similar vintage ones, than with the cover swipe. If CGC won't note the disassembly even if they spot it, how would they know if one or both staples have been replaced on an otherwise HG book? I can see them catching cleaned staples, but not exact vintage replicas.

[namralos]

Any replacement of staples, whether with "vintage" ones or "new" ones, is an act of restoration and needs to be noted.

[skybolt]

Any replacement of staples, whether with "vintage" ones or "new" ones, is an act of restoration and needs to be noted.

 

True, but how would it be caught if the act of disassembling a book is not considered resto. What I mean is by disassembling a book, the inner staple would have to be opened/bent and pulled out of the book. What's to stop someone from inserting a newer vintage staple and bending the same way when re-assembling the book. Once the staple is loose, it could easily be swiped.

 

At least before I figured this won't matter, since CGC would spot the disassembly and PLOD the book anyway, but now I'm not so sure.

[namralos]

"What I mean is by disassembling a book, the inner staple would have to be opened/bent and pulled out of the book."

 

Yes, and I would consider the staple removal and replacement to be restoration...even if the book showed no other signs of resto. One does not disassemble a book for no reason; therefore, the reassembly is a sign of restoration -- even if it is not immediately obvious what that restoration might have been.

[THE_BEYONDER]

"What I mean is by disassembling a book, the inner staple would have to be opened/bent and pulled out of the book."

 

Yes, and I would consider the staple removal and replacement to be restoration...even if the book showed no other signs of resto. One does not disassemble a book for no reason; therefore, the reassembly is a sign of restoration -- even if it is not immediately obvious what that restoration might have been.

 

Replacing rusty staples with vintage ones can be considered an act of conservation(the avoidance of rust migration). Of course.....once the staples are removed, there's no telling what else could be done to the book while disassembled.

[namralos]

I would say that replacement of any kind (whether it's of staples or paper) is not permitted as "conservation" but constitutes "restoration." I'd accept a "green label" designation for books with replaced staples, though, provided no other work had been done. If I saw replaced staples, I'd be tipped off to look for disassembly pressing (which is more noticeable than intact pressing); one thing leads to another. [As I said, one doesn't remove staples for no reason at all.]

 

To me, "conservation" does nothing to alter a book. You can place it in a cold, dry room; the book hasn't been altered. You can slab it or put it in Mylar; the book hasn't been altered. But replacement of rusty staples changes the book. While we're at it, we could have it chemically de-acidified -- but that changes the book.

 

I still think the problem is the public's expectation that CGC (or PGX, or any expert) catch all of these things. Staple replacement is sometimes tough to detect. Whenever detected it should be noted, but perhaps the company would make a "lesser guarantee" associated with catching staple removal; disassembly; pressing; and dry-cleaning. They would make every effort to spot and note these things, but they'd acknowledge that some things are harder to spot than others. Even the whole board (i.e., all of us collectively) might miss a staple replacement -- perhaps 50% of the time (if the new staples were vintage).

 

I just read the webbie statement for today, and in a way I agree with him. While these things that we discuss ARE resto (or at least "tampering"), there are some folks here who want to use that as an excuse to condemn CGC -- which I think is not appropriate.

That said, I don't think it's right to label something as "conservation" when it alters a book.

[THE_BEYONDER]

As long as there is label notation, I could live with disassembled books with Blue Universal labels.

 

At least that way, the buyer would be able to judge for themselves whether or not they feel comfortable with CGC's assesment that no Resto was performed.

[skybolt]

As long as there is label notation, I could live with disassembled books with Blue Universal labels.

 

At least that way, the buyer would be able to judge for themselves whether or not they feel comfortable with CGC's assesment that no Resto was performed.

 

[Ze-man]

As long as there is label notation, I could live with disassembled books with Blue Universal labels.

 

At least that way, the buyer would be able to judge for themselves whether or not they feel comfortable with CGC's assesment that no Resto was performed.

 

 

But there lies the problem, how many books are actually being labeled correctly? I think CGC is treating staple removal and disassembly the same way they treated the various forms of pressing.

 

 

IHMO

 

Ze-

[kc120us]

Very good point, Ze

[Theagenes]

It's taken me a while to get through this whole thread, but I'm finally caught up. This new revelation is incredibly disturbing, but I supposed nothing else could shock me at this point.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I had always thought it was CGC's policy that if a book was disassembled and pressed it was considered resto. But now Steve is saying that what he meant by that was it is resto if a book was disassembled, soaked and then pressed, but if it's just disassembled and pressed that's OK. Are you kidding me? I'm sorry, but I don't buy that.

 

One of the most common arguments in support of the idea that pressing isn't resto is that it is the same as a book being in a tightly packed longbox for twenty years. Maybe I'm misremembering, but hasn't Steve himself used that line of reasoning here before? I'm pretty sure none of my long boxes have popped the staples out of my books and put them back in again.

[tth2]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I had always thought it was CGC's policy that if a book was disassembled and pressed it was considered resto. But now Steve is saying that what he meant by that was it is resto if a book was disassembled, soaked and then pressed, but if it's just disassembled and pressed that's OK. Are you kidding me? I'm sorry, but I don't buy that.

You are correct in your understanding of the earlier interpretation. Everyone was surprised by this new revelation.

 

One of the most common arguments in support of the idea that pressing isn't resto is that it is the same as a book being in a tightly packed longbox for twenty years. Maybe I'm misremembering, but hasn't Steve himself used that line of reasoning here before?

I`m pretty sure Steve has never used that particular line of reasoning to justify CGC`s decision not to consider pressing as restoration.

[Monstro]

misremembering

[THE_BEYONDER]

As long as there is label notation, I could live with disassembled books with Blue Universal labels.

 

At least that way, the buyer would be able to judge for themselves whether or not they feel comfortable with CGC's assesment that no Resto was performed.

 

 

But there lies the problem, how many books are actually being labeled correctly? I think CGC is treating staple removal and disassembly the same way they treaed the various forms of pressing.

 

 

IHMO

 

Ze-

 

There has been nothing but problems since CGC decided to do away with the vast majority of label notations.

 

If a book is disassembled, note it on the label.

 

Give the consumer any/all info pertinent to the present state of the book, and let them decide what it's worth. One of the biggest mistakes they've ever made is catering to those that felt Label Notations were hurting their bottom-line.

 

Be a truly impartial 3rd-party grading company & give consumers of their product as much info as possible.

 

CGC really dropped the ball when they decided that the demands of the largest submitters were more important than the demands of collectors. It's illogical. Noone is going to be submitting books in large quantity if there is noone left to buy them.

[Theagenes]

One of the OLD ways of pressing books was to disassemble it, soak the pages and cover, dry the pages, re-fold the pages and put it back together. Soaking the cover and pages most of the time would make them look cleaned and is considered restoration (cleaning) by CGC. That is why we have stated that disassembled pressing is not something that should be done and we downgrade when books have defects from being pressed incorrectly. When a book is only disassembled AND the staples are not put back correctly the submitter also takes a big chance of getting a qualified grade for staples replaced. Disassembly and reassembly of a comic book, in and of itself, is not considered to be restoration. Almost all of the time that a comic book is disassembled and reassembled, restoration is performed to it because the reason that it was taken apart was to restore it. The disassembled pressing I mention is a primitive and invasive method of pressing that can result in the book receiving a lower grade and that is why anyone should discourage it.

 

What I get from this is that if disassembly and reassembly in and of itself is not restoration, and pressing and dry cleaning is not restoration then disassembly pressing is not restoration. Does this mean that I could send a book to Matt, have him disassenble it, press each page and the cover separately, dry clean the cover, reassemble it correctly, send it to CGC with a copy of Matt's invoice listing the work done and it would still get a blue label? Or would it at least get a Qualified?

 

This scenario appears to be exactly what has happened to some of the books shown in this thread. Some of the spine rolls that have been removed would, I would think, have been very difficult without disassembly. If some of these books were disassembled and pressed, then is their Blue label a result of their "slipping by" CGC or is it because CGC does not (or no longer?) considers disassembly pressing to be restoration?

[Norrin_Radd]

Posted in the "Moderation Policy and Board Controversy" thread, but probably more appropriate here.

 

 

 

I wasn't really part of the "vocal minority" until the latest bombshell. I have owned many CGC-graded comics and planned to own some for my registry set in the future.

 

My thoughts are that if CGC genuinely had the best interests of comic collectors at heart, they would have put their cards on the table a long time ago. They would have plainly stated what they do and do not consider restoration; what they will and will not allow in comics to garner a blue label. That would have provided a level playing field.

 

Instead, CGC has been secretive about what their grading standards and policies are. We are only being afforded glimpses of their standards as each new controversy breaks. And some of the statements we've gotten seem contradictory to other previous statements. This is a very bad way to disseminate information; to have it dragged out of you through interrogation by your customers. This only engenders mistrust of what we'll find out next about their policies that we won't like.

 

On top of that, it appears that certain members of the collecting community were privy to CGC's standards and capabilities. They were able to exploit that inside information for financial benefit, damaging many collectible comics in the process. As a result, collectors don't know with any certainty that comics in blue holders haven't been manipulated from their original condition. The universal blue label can not be seen as a guarantee that the comic hasn't been altered or restored in some way.

 

It's not hard to see why many members of this board (and the overall collecting community) are being turned off by CGC and comic collecting in general.

 

 

Perhaps they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. But if I was spending serious money on comics, I'd want to know what I was getting when I buy a CGC-graded comic with a universal label. Same as if I was buying an expensive raw comic from a dealer. I'd want some guarantee that they'll stand behind their product if it's found to be restored in some way.

[TvComics]

As I think about the new (to us) revelation, that "disassembly and reassembly of a comic book, in and of itself, is not considered to be restoration", I start to think about the whole Micro trimming scandal. I would guess that it is far easier to perform micro-trimming 1 page at a time (if needed) and on the cover separately. Think about all the new tools our there and how easy it must be to manipulate a comic 1 page or cover at a time without having to workaround the other pages.

 

Seems Jason Ewert had it easy. Take apart, clean, clip, press, reassemble, and repeat on the next comic.

 

I pity you high grade collectors. Who knows what is really in those slabs of yours.

[Ze-man]

More ramblings about disassembly, staples swapping, and restoration.

 

For the most part CGC's definition of restoration does seem to fall under the umbrella of tangible things. Things that can be pointed to... " Here it is.. the restoration procedure to improve the comic was done right here"

 

NDP for the most part is not easily detectable if at all, meaning that one cannot look at a book and say with confidence it was pressed or not. Unlike how you can point to a book with CT and say, "Here is the CT right there"

 

Is disassembly also hard to detect 100% of the time as well?

 

It got me to thinking about how the staples in a comic book are like snowflakes, no two are alike. Depending on production defects, normal handling wear and tear, and storage method make it impossible to be 100% sure why the staples sit the way they do in the book after 30-40 years. Staples were originally flat, then they were bent intoto a U shape, then they were bent over when stapled through a comic book. Altering the metal along the way.

 

I am sure there are things to look for when trying to determine if the staples were removed from a comic book When you open(unbend) a folded staple you take the chance of it bending in a manner that does not mimic the stapling process.. It tends to curve the area around the hard bend. Also, when you try to refold them you do not have the same blunt force the original stapling procedure did.

 

But again, every staple is different, every book is diferent, so who is to say how a staple was before or after messing with it.

 

For fun I took a book apart last night, and learned quite a bit about how a comic book is put together.

Depending on your point of view what I did to the book may or may not fall under restoration. But it sure was invasive.

 

End result, I think if the disassembly is performed on the right book, by a person who has experience in recreating how the staples sit in the book I cannot see how anyone could honestly say they know for sure the staples had been removed, and the book taken apart for whatever the reason.

 

 

 

Keep in mind ALL of the work you see in the photos below I did with nothing more then my finger, and fingernail. No tools were used becasue I did not rant to scratch the staple. This was done for my own enjoyment. I am not claiming these photos to be anything other then a fun learning experiment in comic book disassembly and staple removal/replacement.

 

A few things I learned.

 

Even if you wanted to replace the staples in a book with same era vintage staples, you have to find a set of staples that match the way the original staples were bent when pushed through the book. The paper on the inside of the book has indentations from where the original staples rested, or rather made an impression in the paper. So when you re insert the new staples, or even the originals...they have to be rebent to match these indentations. If the centerfold has severe enough staple indentations from the original staples, I think that goes a long way towards earmarking a book. And to me it seems like older, lower grade books would hide disassembly better then a new , tighter, HG book.

I could continue with more details if there is interest.

 

It was fun, thought I would post what I did for all to see.

 

 

Outer lower staple BEFORE removal

 

Outside spine AFTER replacement

 

 

 

 

Outside edge BEFORE removal

 

Outside upper staple AFTER

 

 

 

 

 

upper inner staple BEFORE

 

upper Staple AFTER replaced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Staples after I pried them open with my fingernail

 

Here is the book AFTER I removed and replaced the staples

 

 

The staples thenselves

 

The book after staples were pulled out

 

Inside the front cover after removal

 

To the trained eye I am sure you could probably tell what I did to the book. I left to many clues since it was my first time doing it.

But looking at the book in hand, I cannot tell it was any different then before I started.

 

 

In the end, I dont think it is easy to detect disassembly if it is done properly.

 

Ze-

[Monstro]

yea well isn't cgc a trained eye?